Wednesday, October 08, 2014

From Dust it Comes ... To Dust it Returns..:)




From Dust it Comes ... To Dust it Returns..:)

Happy (then) BICEP2 Scientists




Another fancy claim bites the Dust, Galactic Dust, I should say.

The experiment Bicep2 announced with great fanfare this Spring that they were able to see large anisotropy swirls remnants from the Big Bang.  I scratched my head to see if that made any sense in my theory.  It could.  Any theory that starts from a single point (or small volume) would contain correlated regions and thus a correlation distance.  That correlation could manifest itself in anisotropy swirls.

While struggling with the Pioneer Anomaly, I reached after a few trials, the conclusion that one couldn't ever see the Big Bang.  The initial Gamma Ray burst wavefront is (SQRT(2)-1)*c*AgeOfTheUniverse ahead of us at this time.

My initial analysis required us to be able to see that burst if we were to look far enough.  I was wrong.  Long gone are those good old Gamma Rays...:) Thankfully.

Now this report brings down another outrageous claim of flimsy Science.

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140921-big-bang-signal-could-all-be-dust-planck-says/

People should take a clue from this and reevaluate our God Particle...:)  the Higgs Boson... as well as the concepts of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Not enough discussion, not enough dissension has been permitted on Cosmology and Particle Physics topics.  One understands the reason, after all, one has to spend tens of billions of dollars to do an experiment.

That said, now that everyone already got their Nobel Prizes, got their data...:)  It is about time to discuss alternatives.

Cheers,

Marco


Friday, August 01, 2014

A 3.5 Factor, Hyperluminous Neutrinos and Infinitely Fast Processes

A 3.5 Factor, Hyperluminous Neutrinos and Infinitely Fast Processes

First let's talk about a 3.5 factor in my theory.  When developing the theory, I as everybody else, took clues from reality.  A theory has to be self-consistent and consistent with reality.  I realized that deriving the theory just by looking at cross-sections of an light-speed expanding hypersphere wasn't in line with the standard way of thinking.  One normally thinks about a force, being communicated through space and distance... so the field will naturally be diluted by the area though which it is diffusing..:)

If I were to use that kind of reasoning in my theory, I would have a much harder time thinking about the physics... in addition, I noticed that deriving a physical theory in an noncompact 4D spatial manifold using cross-sections yielded the same laws as deriving a theory using fields in a 3D-manifold. Of course, this has implications on the meaning of a delocalized mode.  If one considers a photon being emitted by a molecule.  That photon at long distances, can be thought as being carried by a spherical wave. Of course, that wave collapses immediately at the time that photon is absorbed by another molecule.  What is the meaning of distributing it throughout space, just to collapse it instantaneously during absorption. One doesn't have to remind you, that this goes against Relativity.  It is a form of instantaneous communication in the same way as the process of spin correlation in correlated-at-origin photons.

These are hard questions about the Nature of Photons.  In my theory, photons are spatial modulations of the dilaton wave-generator (dilator). The same difficulties arises. So the idea that interaction has to have a representation as diffusive process on an area or volume is hardly clear. The derivation by cross-section (2-Dimensional) circumference might be closer to the actual physics than a diffusion of a field through an expanding area.

I decided to go against fields (Fields of Dreams - my prior posting) as static properties of space.  Instead I decided that space should not be subject to a static strain, but it should be flexible and be the medium for waves.

In a cross-section analysis, I made the 'field" (wave amplitude) to decay inversely proportional to the number of nodes.  The same reasoning using fields, would imply that the field would decay inversely to the square of the distance...:), that is, having the amplitude of a dilaton wave decaying inversely with the number of nodes together with the usage of the Quantum Lagrangian Principle (each dilator dilates in phase with the local dilaton field) yields the same laws as considering that there is a field and that that field decays inversely with the square of the distance (or area covered).

There is more than just a predilection and sense of aesthetics in play here.  You cannot create a theory of everything by introducing more things (more constructs - force, field, mass, etc).  It is just a Rube Goldberg Machine....:)

In deriving the equations, I considered how much should the field decay at each de Broglie step.  There were three identical cross-sections (3) and there was a linear dimension along the radial direction where the dilaton field would also propagate.  At the time, ridding a subway, shaking left and right, it made sense.  Now it makes less sense and might require the addition of an extra parameter (there is almost no parameters in my theory).
That parameter would relate 4D Mass to 3D Mass.  We always knew that to go from 3D to 4D required a strong analogical mind... :)  For 3D to 4D gravitational masses, my initial 1:2 relationship is fine.  When I move to 4D electromagnetic mass, extra parametrization might be required.  When I have time, I will develop this further.  This shouldn't be a problem to any physicist worth their salt....after all, whenever it was convenient, infinite became finite (renormalization) in our current physical theories..etc.

When I have time, I will revisit this subject.

Hyperluminous Neutrinos

In my theory, an electron neutrino (related to Neutron decay), maps to a two dimensional wave propagating in the 4D spatial manifold. The neutrino is responsible for rotating the dilaton within the 3D Hyperspherical Hypersurface (3D Universe).

Since Neutrino and Light (photons) are elastic propagating deformations of space in my theory, one would expect them to travel at different speeds - think dispersion..:).  Neutrinos are transversal waves and photons are longitudinal waves.  Under normal materials, transversal waves are faster, which would make Neutrinos Hyperluminous.

Faster than the speed of light neutrinos were "observed" in an experiment Opera, just to be denied a few months later.  The poor scientist Prof Antonio Ereditato  who dared to Challenge Einstein's Theory, had to resign. Of course, I've never considered that neutrinos and light traveled at the same speed and still believe neutrinos are faster, just because of their topology (transversal spatial deformation waves).

Of course, I don't have a place to resign, so I can say anything.. and that is a good thing. Backing me up, is another physical observation .  The early arrival of neutrinos when a Supernova exploded (Supernova 1987a,) someplace else.  Neill deGrasse Tyson, who has a place from which to resign, cautiously suggested that there was a way to explain why a photon (which has no mass) should be slowed more by a gravitational field than a neutrino which supposedly might have some mass...:)

I don't know how he does it... The mental contortion to avoid stating the obvious - that Neutrinos - whatever they are, might travel faster than the speed of light... after all they arrived earlier than the light from that Supernova...:)  The difference in speed is 0.0000003%, something Opera couldn't never detect.

That is the problem with idolatry... Einstein was good, very good... but if we keep him in a pedestal, we are not going anywhere.

Infinitely Fast Processes

What would be the reason for something to be infinitely fast.  I can give you one situation.  Let's say that space deformation is quantized, that is, the energy to deform space tunnels from mode to mode.  We know that tunneling is instantaneous....:) you are either here or there... not in between...

I draw circles showing the dilaton field expanding through space.  The energy impacted in that dilaton and  its polarization are quantized.  That is, if you change it in one place of the Universe, that would be the same as if the dilaton converted into another mode (for instance, a mode of perpendicular polarization to the initial one).  That can occur instantaneously, since despite the dilator field is spanning a large distance, the two perpendicularly polarization modes occupy the same volume in space.  That solves the problem of non-local interaction.  I believe, this works at particle level also, that is, if one can convert a dilaton field into a dilator, one can create teleportation.  There is a big if...  IF you want to know the answer, work harder at understanding the theory and how it applies to solving your energy problems, stellar travel...etc..

Ask questions while I still might know the answers...:)

Cheers,

MP

Sunday, December 08, 2013

The ABC Conjecture, The InterUniversal Geometry and the Hyperon Family

The ABC Conjecture,

 The Hypergeometrical Universe 

and 

The InterUniversal Geometry


In my prior posting about the ABC Conjecture I mentioned that in creating the assignment for the Hyperon Family, I came across the ABC conjecture.  I have to say that as many of the mystic mathematical associations with the Physical World, I wrote it half tongue-in-cheek.  Half because it takes a little more time than I have right now to investigate the extension of the validity of any association.  The other half is that I believe some if not all of those associations will be held in one way or another.

In my theory, particles can be represented by simple integers because they are multiples (in general) of the Fundamental Dilator. This makes my theory easy to map into Pure Mathematics.... :) All the other theories are cacophonies of "Quantum Numbers", thus necessarily multidimensional.  Quantum Numbers are used even while the reasoning for the word "Quantum" is not clear in those theories - no explicit quantizing process taking place anywhere.

Associations:


  • I mentioned that the charged hyperons mapped into Primes which make them related to the Riemann Hypothesis (that the zeros of the Zeta should be primes).
  • Any neutral hyperon should be a sum of two primes (two charged hyperons). This is the Goldbach's Conjecture..:)
  • Neutral particles are Goldebach numbers...:)
  • Every integer greater than 5 can be written as the sum of three primes, would indicate that any particle larger than five-dilators could have a three particle decaying path
  • FIVE are the CRAZY DELTAS 
     
     

     
  • Any Majorama particle is equal to 2^n.
  • Any three particles dissociation process follows the ABC Conjecture.  This is simply because if they didn't the dissociation path would lead to a higher order many-body process or interaction.  The three numbers or particles should be co-primes, that is, they cannot be decomposed into a common particle otherwise the actual dissociation pathway would be the one for ABC divided by that common denominator.  So the family is to be created by bootstrapping coprimes of the Fundamental Dilator unit...:)

I liked that Shinichi  Mochizuki used the term InterUniversal Geometry..:)

If I am right, if one delves into describing the elasticity of space and the topology and taxonomy of particles, one will find that the ABC Conjecture has to do with volume in a number space. The volume of a number is the product of its primes

For instance 

10=2*5 is two dimensional and has more volume than just 5.  Primes are unidimensional, thus are the axis of this infinite number space.

If you think about numbers as volumes in a number space, then ABC is a law of conservation of volumes.
Along the same lines, the Riemann Hypothesis or the zeros of a Zeta Function are the eigenvectors of a number space, each prime points to a different direction in it.

Similarly, the Goldbach conjecture is about even numbers being simple two dimensional retangles in the number space.

Similarly the Majorama particles being equal to 2^N gives rise to a number resonance in the Dilator Space..:)  1+3=4, 5+3=8 (5+3=8 is more stable than 1+7=8 mostly likely through entropic arguments....although most likely both pathways would be possible)...

This seems to talk about a unit of area in the number space.  So if you think about numbers as vector in a number space, the ABC conjecture can be thought as:
a)  rad(ABC) is the unit of volume ((AxB).C ) under the product ABC 
b) C is the sum of two vectors in the number space, each with a length equal to A and  B (A and B is the same as Volume of A and Volume of B in the number space), although the number itself is a vector in that space.  This means that a number is both a scalar (volume) and a vector or a vector with a length equal to the volume... etc..:)
The ABC Conjecture looks to be like A+B < C

There is a simple extension of this reasoning that might be clearer.

Cheers,

MP

Friday, February 15, 2013

The Importance of Physics!


The Importance of Physics

Physics, the understanding of Natural Laws is a captivating lifetime pursuit to me but it is also important to the survival of Mankind.  Today's Asteroid,  Meteors is an emphatic exclamation point to my The Importance of Physics headline.

This posting was initially  published on Sunday, March 04, 2007 and didn't refer to this Asteroid specifically.  I was referring to another one that will be even more dangerous. I am republishing it to remind us why the censorship of my ideas is not a good idea.

There are questions about the the exact trajectory of an incoming doomsday asteroid but there is certainty a high degree of self-censorship with respect to information about that event.

Today, I read again about the 450 million tons asteroid that would cross Earth's path in 2026 at a distance closer than the Moon. It was written in the article that even that was not what the scientist were concerned about. There would be an even closer fly-by.

Well. I came to write this blog and came back to pick up the reference and link to the news. Google had already moved it around or eliminated it.

The case in point is that I have been hearing about this incoming asteroid since December and did not see any scientific discussion in the media about the validity of this information.

If a doomsday asteroid is coming, I would like to offer some fresh ideas on how to eliminate the problem. That will not happen if this theory is not properly evaluated. If theorists put their petty vanity ahead of the needs of Mankind.

I believe some classification of theories in a manner similar to the one that exists in Philica should be in place within the Los Alamos Arxives. One thing that should NOT exist is plain censorship.

Los Alamos Arxives is a taxpayer funded pre-print (eprint) repository, that is, it is the place for papers that were not necessarily sent to a journal or received a peer-review yet. Peers would provide a peer review and that is fair.

In the past, there was no censorship or obstacles to publishing. Eventually, the bar was raised and an endorser was required. I passed that obstacle just to receive an "Inappropriate" review. Nothing else than the word "Inappropriate" was said about the theory. There was no need for anything else. The one who "owns" the repository actively controls whatever is published there.

If a theory has evident flaws the author should be told and the paper should NOT be published. If that is not the case, the paper should be published (eprinted) and occupy some few bytes in some server some place. The incremental cost is zero. The resistance to new ideas by established scientific elites has been an obstacle to the progress of science since there were scientists or the Church.

Today, we have the means to publish our ideas despite these obstacles, but that doesn't provide the extremely important peer-review and peer-recognition. By recognition I don't mean recognition of the author of the idea, but recognition of the idea itself.

An idea stands by itself long after the author is gone, but it has to be recognized by the Intelligentsia and to become part of the idea soup that feed our progress...:)

What we cannot accept is to have physics theories censored willy-nilly by simple minded molecular biophysicists (the "owner" of Los Alamos Archives is coincidentally a Molecular Biophysicist of all things)...:)

I believe that Physics is Fun but it is also Serious. The consequences of censorship, the hyping of stupid ideas for sake of book selling, TV show deal...:) can be high and maybe way too high for us to pay.

Cheers,

MP


Sunday, February 03, 2013

The Whole Universe and a Grain of Sand


The Whole Universe and a Grain of Sand

Normally, I wouldn't bother to juxtapose my ideas against the accepted mainstream Science.  This time, I found this show and it states such stupid ideas that I had to do it.

This show is well done, nice pictures, smiling scientists..... as opposed to my crude postings, so I will do the best I can.

The point I would like to make is the problem associated with a 3D spatial Universe and the Grain of Sand comment.  The curvature of the Universe, according to General Relativity, depends upon the mass it contains.

Since in the mainstream Science there is no fourth non-compact spatial dimension as in the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory, when one talks about curvature, one is always conjecturing about a spacetime curvature.

Depending upon the Universe mass content, the spacetime curvature would be concave, convex or flat (positive or negative or zero).

In a simple manner, a convex spacetime wouldn't have a cycle, that is, the Universe would follow a never returning life path.  Since it has a start - a Big Bang - it would just expand eternally. Conversely, a concave spacetime would indicate a boom and crunch 3D periodic Universe, like if the total mass of the Universe would generate enough gravitational pull to decelerate all the Galaxies and collapse them into a Big Crunch.

The difference between one and the other Universe scenarios lies just on one extra Grain of Sand...:)

If I had conjured up a theory which had such level of criticality, I would be strongly suspicious that I made a silly mistake somewhere.

That should be enough to make any reasonable person to realize that something is amiss...

My theory includes a fourth spatial dimension and keep our 3D Universe in a light-speed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.  Hence, the curvature can be either a spacetime curvature or a spatial curvature of the Hypersurface within the 4D spatial manifold.  This curvature increases as time goes by no matter what is the distribution of mass within the 3D Hypersurface.  The hyperspherical symmetry makes any point of the hypersphere to be equivalent, so there is no locus of the Big Bang to create a Big Crunch some time later.

The light-speeding expanding hyperspherical universe provides the flat curvature as a given.  The curvature is the age of the Universe times SpeedOfLight, that is a very large radius of curvature and thus a very small curvature.  Expansion occurs without the need of Dark Energy.  Prior Eras had a gravitational force that is stronger according to the inverse 4D radius of the Hypersphere, so looking into far away (the past) one has to take that into consideration when calculating mass (this should eliminate the need for Dark Matter altogether.

Using this simple Cosmological Topology there is no Proof of God's Existence from an extra Grain of Sand or Grain of Salt..>:)... No mesmerizing Cosmological Accident or Feat of God's Engineering...:)
There is no need to invoke a Multiverse nor the Circular Reasoning of the Anthropic Principle where the reason we think about this because this Universe allows us to think about this...:)  This creates a natural filter on the Multiverse.  In all the Universes where we don't exist, we don't ask these profound questions about it Laws.

This is, for me, an example of the utter vanity that prevails in the minds of these scientists and the vanity used to sell ideas to the general public. Not unlike the Comment "Subtle is the Lord", "I want to read God's Mind", or Seeing the Hand of God in a particle collision...:)

Human Vanity is used over and over again to sell shoes, cars, particle accelerators, String Theory, and to give some scientists a bully pulpit...:)

My theory is a simple, humble theory  :), but it should be discussed since the alternatives are really, really stupid.  Well, if not stupid, just plain unnecessarily complex, not unlike the original primitive model of a Flat Earth and a Dome full of Twinkling Stars..:) where all the complexity is hidden in a Almighty God...:)

Cheers,

MP

ps- by the way, String Theory has been disregarded as a solution to this "Puzzle" because given enough parameters it can be the solution of anything.


Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Stroboscopic Universe Questions


Henna has left a new comment on your post "The Stroboscopic Universe":

Would it be possible to observe outside our "Frequency" and what would we see there? Different laws of physics perhaps? Chaos?

Henry asked this interesting question!


The answer relates to the Ghostly Neutrinos.  Most of the particles have multiples of the Fundamental Dilator in it.  This means that the mean frequency of the outgoing dilaton field is the Fundamental Dilator Frequency. 

For example, the four fundamental particles (electron, proton, antielectron and antiproton) are just different phases of the same Fundamental Dilator coherence.  The states involved are shown below:
Neutron contains also a transmutation chord.  The transmutation chord corresponds to a half-electron-antineutrino. Within the coherence, the half-antineutrino corresponds to a rotation within the 3D hyperspherical Universe (as opposed to the more normal spinning -tumbling around within the 4D spatial manifold).  That section of the coherence changes the phase relationship between spinning and tunneling between local metric deformational states, and thus changes which phase is in phase with the 3D lightspeed expanding Hyperspherical Universe.
When a neutron decays, it releases an antineutrino, which corresponds to a two-dimensional deformational coherence.

The involved levels for the neutrino are (2/3,-1/3,2/3) and (2/3,2/3,-1/3).  The levels involved in the fundamental dilator are (2/3,2/3,-1/3) and (0,-2/3,-1/3).

These levels corresponds to two different frequencies.  The difference in frequency means that interaction will be vanishingly small due to the averaging of two cosines of different frequencies go to zero.  This also means that interaction will only occurs at very close range.

So in my theory, the result of having particles that creates dilaton fields of different frequencies yield the so called Ghostly Particles or non-interacting particles.

Cheers,

MP

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

ARE Neutral Majorama PARTICLES 2^N NUMBERS


ARE Neutral Majorama PARTICLES 2^N NUMBERS


YES. I am sure the numerologists will have a field day..:)

As in any good Horoscope, there is a caveat. There are exclusions to the Prime Rule. They are associated with another nice mathematical formula, the formula for 2 to the power of another number. (2,4,8,16…)

TWO is the precursor to a Gamma photon from the annihilation of a Positron-Electron pair.


FOUR is the Pion Zero


EIGTH is the KAON ZERO

Later, I will show how the mathematical space topology and mathematical instrumentation needed to solve the Riemann Hypothesis also describes the mass of the Hyperons…:)

A hint. Look at the Fundamental Dilator coherence 'energy' diagram. The degenerated states on the two potential wells lose their degeneration due to the finite velocity of light, which creates a time delay for a spatial rotation within the 3D Lightspeed Expanding Hypersphere.

Think about what does it means to be real…:) and read the Meaning of Material Existence blog I wrote in the past.



ARE THERE Neutral PARTICLES = 2*N NUMBERS

As in any good Horoscope, there is always something for everyone. It just happens that 2N is also a valid mapping for Neutral Particles.

Of course, since they decompose into opposite charged particles, they have to be the SUM OF TWO PRIMES (Goldbach's Conjecture) or 2 Particles supported by the Riemann Conjecture…:) . All together supported by the ABC Conjecture..:)

SIX is the DELTA ZERO



Now that you know the answer to the question, it should be easier to derive the equation that describes the process...:) I wrote a book called The Flying Orchestra, which represents our journey through the Universe inside the Ligthspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe. Most of us :) are composed of isotopes, which turned out to be quite harmonious dimensional notes. The Hyperons are the basic notes of our Universe, that is, the most unique, cacophonous notes one can create- like Heavy Metal...:)

In comparison, the isotopes are like Mozart Symphonies...NAH....in fact, they are quite boring and more like Kenny G

In the next few blogs, I will address the isotopes, the mass equation (or God Equation if you so prefer :) .

I am awaiting for Steven Chu to say something before I write about how to make a neutral particle accelerator or anything accelerator or dimensional accelerator...:)

Cheers,

MP

Protons, Electrons, Antiprotons, Positrons and Neutrons


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  I decided to add ONE to the prime sequence just as a rebellious guy I am..:)

In my theory one can easily relate ZERO to the dilaton field and its spatial modulation (electromagnetic waves).

ONE is clearly the Fundamental Dilator which represents all four fundamental particles (Electron, Proton, AntiElectron, AntiProton).

The topology is a point!

TWO is of course the Neutron

The topology is a segment!

THE PIONS


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

THREE are the Pions

The topology is a shown below:



The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE CRAZY DELTAS


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

FIVE are the CRAZY DELTAS




The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE KAONS


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  

SEVEN are the KAONS

The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE XIS Star


Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.  
ELEVEN are the XIS Star – This Channel decays into a KaonZero and a Pion Minus.



The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

THE LUCKY OMEGAS














Riemann Hypothesis: Are all Spin Half Hyperons Primes?

YES.

THIRTEEN are the LUCKY OMEGAS (below are two decay channels)



The cylindrical axis of symmetry spins within the 4-D Spatial Manifold

Riemann Hypothesis and The Hypergeometrical Universe


Riemann Hypothesis and The Hypergeometrical Universe
 
Our love for knowledge and beauty has always driven us to find the most sublime analogies to represent what we are seeing in the Universe. Einstein wanted to read God's Mind. The Hypothetical Higgs Boson has been named by some as the God Particle. I equated the steps of my Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe as being somewhat similar to the Pendulum of Brahma. At each cycle we see ourselves changed by that Universal Operator.

Mathematics is always the Golden Standard of beauty. We always hope to find a nicely fitting mathematical equation to describe the whole Universe. Mathematicians (String Theorists) are especially hopeful..:). Of course, after all, that would be redemption to their endeavor of creating the least physical (most mathematical) theory in history.

Euler's Beta Function relationship to the Strong Force model was immediately recognized as the sign we are on the right track, after all, for a theory to be correct it has to be aesthetically beautiful….:) Form over content…very typical of our Mankind always driven by superficial calculations….:)

It just happens that there isn't any indication that physics doesn't matter, that is, there isn't any indication that at the end of all, we will have everything described by a simple mathematical equations that overrules all physical properties.

For example, there is the wave equation which describes all waves as long as they have a natural velocity or one knows the elasticity of the medium where those waves propagate. This means that even though we have the knowledge of an equation which would describe such a general phenomena as waves, the physics is still there in the form of a pesky constant.. :)

This does not demerit the scientists who found those beautiful equations, it just serves as a reminder that there might be a limit on what mathematical abstraction can achieve.

It has been said with some understated deepness that the Riemann Hypothesis might be the solution to the Theory of Everything, that is, something, some force, some string might be represented somehow by the zeros of the Zeta function along the critical line. The details are fuzzy since this is just a wild (albeit educated..:)  guess...:)

Scientists look down to Horoscopists all their lives…:)  It is well know that vague statements can always find resonance within some fraction of the population and thus keep the readers happy and aware of their daily best options…

One might say that the same happens in Science. There is a difference. Since we are a much more educated bunch than the average person, our guesses are better educated..:) that is, there is something deep in the number theory applied to Primes..:)

Of course, this is just because people doesn't know how to think about numbers and one should expect that if the zeros of an equation are primes, most likely the logic behind the construction of the equation is such that only certain primes will be zeros..:)

It is like being surprised that f(x)=(x-1)*(x-2) has zeros equal to 1 and 2.

Number theory is just not developed enough to see the underlying logic behind the Riemann Hypothesis and the Zeta Function (or Eta Function on the Analytic Continuation).

As usual, the statement that the Riemann Hypothesis should be relevant to our understanding of the Universe can be decomposed into the simpler statement that Primes will be relevant..:) I am a simple minded man, so I will cut to the chase and explore this proposition..:)

Nobody bothered to think about Primes because nothing in Physics looks like Primes. If a poor string theorist looks around and think about making Primes to be some property of strings them we might end up with 10^500000000000000 possible Universes with different string theories explaining each one of them..:)

A Standard Model Physicist is not in much better position. Let say that zero are electromagnetic waves, the ONE is… The next basic particles are electron and Proton … Neutron might be TWO but that does not solve the problem. Electrons and Protons are certainly not equal in the Standard Model and the analogy dies there…:)

Of course, that is not the case in the Hypergeometrical Universe.

Monday, October 08, 2012

Under the Night Sky


Under the Night Sky

In the last few days, I had to revisit my feelings about the creation of my theory. I have to say that despite of my own personal emotional investment on the idea, I always keep enough distance that I can say that this is a nice and simple idea that should be part of the discussion.

 I would never state that this is a theory of the 23rd Century that made landing on our 20th Century minds as some people from String Theory have said…J Just to be part of the discussion is a good target. Not because this is the most complex theory… but because this is the simplest theory and should be addressed.

As those obnoxious people say, Occam's razor. 

Before we address the reasons why everything failed (before they explained why the failures were to be expected..:) in the current theory (the detection of quarks, quantum chromodynamics color charges etc), we should consider the simplest theory we can create that equally explains reality.

 That said, I believe that myself and other crackpots from the internet (J), assorted String Theorists, Higgs Bosonists etc have in common the moment of discovery. We were all struck by some vision that requires a sizable amount of attention and the sacrifice of months, years of continuous thinking, always trying not to lose the thread of thought. Not unlike the thread in the Minotaur Cave Allegory, this is thread of thought that might bring a new level of understanding on the Wonders of the Universe, which would also bring us into the light.

 Every time I think about why I am trying to do what I am trying to do, I remember of our (Mankind) trajectory… From our days inside caves, marveled by the stars in the sky (always the same sky as the one in the picture), gullible enough to believe that the Sun is the Eye of a God, in fact that everything worked by Magic of some sort.

Scared, afraid of their own shadows, curious little monkeys…J That curiosity brought us far in a short period of time… extremely brief considering that those stars above have barely moved…

We might not even last long enough to leave any mark whatsoever in this Universe, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. Despite of our disagreements on theoretical basis or merits of any theory, we all are driven by the best emotions (least selfish) that Mankind is capable.

One cannot envision how the Universe works and not know one's place in it. Nothing more than a handful of Star Dust that strived to look up into the sky and wondered about both The Why and The How.

 Cheers,

 MP

Thursday, September 27, 2012

New Book

Hurray

The theory has been published in a new book:
Quantization and Discretization at Large Scales

Which is a fitting title for a book containing a theory (The Hypergeometrical Universe) where the Whole Universe interacts in a Quantized Manner (Stroboscopic Interaction).

My Prior books:


I also learned about a list of Dissident Scientists..:)  As much as I would like to conform, my theory doesn't conform to current views and until I find a nice soul that will tell me wrong, I have the duty of defending the idea.  Not unlike Giordano  Bruno, but hopefully without the fire.

I am hopeful that before I forget about this theory and move on to my next project, some interested young students or curious Cosmologists/Particle Physicists will be motivated enough by a theory that settles down the dispute between Sir Isaac Newton and Christian Huygens in a total new way, by expanding Huygens Principle to all matter in a 5D spacetime while creating an Hypergeometrical Version of Newton's Laws.

Cheers,

MP


Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The ABC Conjecture

The ABC Conjecture and The Hypergeometrical Universe

The abc conjecture (also known as OesterlĂ©–Masser conjecture) is a conjecture in number theory, first proposed by Joseph OesterlĂ© (1988) and David Masser (1985) as an integer analogue of the Mason–Stothers theorem for polynomials. The conjecture is stated in terms of three positive integers, ab and c (whence comes the name), which have no common factor and satisfy a + b = c. If d denotes the product of the distinct prime factors of abc, the conjecture essentially states that d is rarely much smaller than c.
What could the identity
                                                   a+b=c
where a,b,c have not common factors have to do with a Theory of Everything..:)
a,b, and c are said to be COPRIMES
In number theory, a branch of mathematics, two integers a and b are said to be coprime (also spelled co-prime) or relatively prime if the only positive integer that evenly divides both of them is 1. This is the same thing as their greatest common divisor being 1.
This equation and conjecture reminded me the process I went through when I create my Hyperon Family Assignment.  In the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory, all particles, isotopes are multiples of a Fundamental Dilator intervened by one of a couple of Transmutational Dimensional Notes.  These Transmutational Dimensional Notes map closely to Neutrinos, as the electron antineutrino in the Neutron decay.

For me, the ABC equation (Conjecture) within the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory represents the decay equation for particles. Integer number are represented by multiples of the Fundamental Dilator.

In any other theory where there isn't a single building block (The Fundamental Dilator), this statement wouldn't make any sense.

In the Standard Model, due to the complexity of the ad-hoc quantum number zoo, particles differ too much to be placed in a simple abc equation that regulates the composition of new particles.

Of course, since I am modeling a finite and small number of Hyperons, I didn't have to face the tremendous hard task of proving the ABC Conjecture.  I believe it has a position in the Physical Sciences in the description of Particle Decay or on a positive note, Particle Creation.  All particles should follow the ABC equation and be coprimes in term of Fundamental Dilator Moieties.

Cheers,

MP


Illuminati Puzzle Solution

Life is demanding and I still owe you the equation for all the particles and the solution to the Illuminati puzzle I created on the Verbum Significatium Posting.

A bright fellow/lady discovered the solution to this Illuminate Puzzle below:


The solution is: ENERGY FROM COLD

He asked me if this was some kind of Cold Fusion.  I told him not.

In my theory, Neutrons plays a very important role. They are first excited level of space deformation.

In my theory when matter collapses on itself to form a Black Hole, they form a neutron crystal with finite size and well defined compaction level  The distance between neutrons is defined by the dilaton wavelength (wavelength = Compton wavelength of a Hydrogen Atom).

The "force" that bring particles together (electromagnetism for charge particles), gravitation for neutrons goes to zero when they reached a level of compaction that brings them at distance equal to the Compton Wavelength of an Hydrogen atom.  There isn't any singularity in the interaction between dilators, so there isn't anything that requires the level of speculation that a Black Hole conjures in the impressionable minds of the Relativistic Scientists..:)

Of course, if the crystal is perfect and positions well defined, that means that the entropy within the volume of the "Black Hole" is zero, and all the entropy is in the surface of that neutron crystal.

That should come up as a nice touch considering that that is the expectation from current Black Hole Models.

Like in any other crystal, the Black Hole (made of a perfect neutron crystal) contains domains. In this case, the domains are made up by spin domains, not unlike a ferrimagnetic Yttrium Iron garnet of my childhood..:)

As the Black Hole cools down, the wavefunction of these neutrons extends into opposite spinning domains creating the conditions for annihilation and relaxation of the space.

Matter should simply disappear in a flash of Gamma Rays, leaving no trace other than the kinetic energy freed from the disappearance of the Gravitational Field.

I believe this is the mechanism of Gamma Ray Bursts.  They should happen when neutron domains becomes cold enough to annihilate themselves, leaving just the Gamma Ray (coherence between flat metric and deformed metric states).

Cheers,

MP


Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Request for Criticism...:)

Request for Criticism

Today, I was going through some amazing videos about Dolphins and Beluga Whales (amazing animals) and I found a reference to a toroidal machine (supposedly a double tokamak or something like that) and the name of Nassin Haramein.


I googled him to find out more about the design and saw a New Age Indian fellow talking to gullible New Age People.  I also found a critique of Nassin's narrative:
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-so-misleading-about-nassim.html#s2

Since I crave criticism, I went on and sent Bob (the guy who wrote the Up blog criticizing Nassin) a request for criticism...with a built in criticism to Bob's critique..:) Just to start the ball rolling.  I believe that Science should be fun, criticism can be a two-way street or a vigorous scientific debate.  All of those options are fun and enlightening.

Below is the email I sent to Bob.  Hopefully he will engage me and help me explain my ideas or correct them.

Dear Bob,
 I liked your criticism of Nassin Haremain’s charlatanism…
 Could you please use your nice skills to criticize my work.  I believe that only through criticism or critique one can progress.
 The work is shown in the blog
http://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com I have had a very hard time finding a single scientist who would make any criticism of my work..:) and that is not fair…J If it is bad, it should be easy to find an evident error.
 For instance, it is quite disturbing how easily you repeat the current blurb about the expansion of space (space coming out of nowhere) while not coming with a simple explanation like my lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface (a 3d Hypersurface where our Universe is located).  Please check the blog, pdfs, books or ask questions on the blog. I will be more than happy to explain anything.
 This topology doesn’t require you to create space as you go… explains expansion without dark energy, etc..
 Cheers,
 MP

In any event, we might benefit from his sharp tongue.

Cheers,

MP

Saturday, June 16, 2012

New and nice features

Please sign in and support this blog...:)

I've created this theory and tried the best to convey its simplicity, beauty and connect it to philosophical musings (the beginning of times), ontological considerations (the intermittent existence), mythology (Plato's Cave and Goddess Huntress Diana...:)

I will get back soon to polish it once more and to make sure everything holds together with new information (e.g. subluminal or superluminal neutrinos, Voyager is decelerating due to its own anisotropic infrared emission pattern.:)..

The questions about neutrinos is how much of the neutrino speed discrepancy is explained away in this case, detected away since the measurement is the result of an experiment.  The same goes for the Voyager's deceleration.  How much deceleration is explained away by flimsy arguments (they look flimsy to me at first glance) changes the current size/age of the Universe but doesn't change topology nor calculations.

My intention is to wait a little to find out the details of those explanations and then redo the calculations.

They have no substantial effect on the model. I have absolutely no reason to consider the superluminal neutrino not superluminal at this point and expect that once good measurements are done, this matter will be settled down on the side of unexpected discovery and not as a confirmation of restrict relativity as everyone is betting right now..:) To bet on no surprises is what one calls an easy bet...because it is just dogmatic... no reasoning behind...Einstein never bother to explain the why the speed of light is a limit... this is just a dogma or hypothesis... not a conclusion..:)

In my theory, the neutrino is ejected and accelerated to its final velocity during the dilatonic interaction at the ejection time, that is, the neutrino will surf the dilaton waves for a few cycles before being out of range.  Since the neutrino coherence has a different frequency than the fundamental dilator coherence, I would expect dispersion, so I would expect the neutrino final velocity to be different than the speed of light.  The amount depends upon dispersion, which I cannot know until I model all the hyperon family masses.

Cheers,

MP


Sunday, September 25, 2011

Hyperluminal Neutrinos..:)

Hyperluminal Neutrinos

Today I will talk about a blockbuster research result from CERN. They discovered that Neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light.  That has been in the News, hot from the Press...:) Earth shattering discovery.

Within the framework of the Hypergeometrical Universe theory,  a more fundamental theory, this higher than the speed of light amazing discovery is simply explained away with a simple phrase:


 Hyperluminal Neutrinos  ==  Dispersion
That is Electron Neutrinos are just asymmetric mode dilatons 


Einstein's made many great contributions to Science. The photoelectric effect; proving the existence of atoms by modeling Brownian motion. I have to say, even Restrict Relativity was a great achievement since it emphasized the need for an interpretation where observed (proper) time had to be expanded to explain the observed Universe. I consider General Relativity his least contribution due to the ad-hoc nature of his equations and the resulting confusion of equations with a pole.  They were the source of the Black Hole conjecture.

In the past, I went further and  explained how the passage of time is dependent upon which laws we choose to describe the Universe in The Image in the Mirror posting. Within the Hypergeometrical Universe, instead of Newton's Gravitational Law (the one with a horrendous pole at zero distance), I proposed that dilators (Hypergeometrical Universe "particles") dilate in phase with the surrounding dilaton field.  This is called the Quantum Lagrangian Principle and it is easily supported by considerations of metric deformation quantization (which lays a level deeper than our observed Quantum Mechanics).

By the way, that pole is the reason why we were misguided into considering the existence of a singularity or dressed singularity or Black Hole. The negation of the existence of a singularity naked or covered is different from saying that there isn't compact distributions of matter that irradiates little or no visible ligth.  This objection only refers to the spacetime representation with Mass Dependent Curvature.  This curvature is dependent upon what laws we use to describe motion. If you law has a pole, then the curvature or spacetime will have to have a singularity.  If you choose a law without a pole, there will be no need for a singularity.

The Quantum Fundamental Principle defines the position of dilators at each consecutive de Broglie step of expansion of the Hyperspherical Universe.  There is an accumulation point at 45 degrees with respect to the hyperspherical 3D universe. At that angle, matter is traveling at the speed of light and displacements at each de Broglie step approaches asymptotically zero, that is, no motion at time goes by on each and every other reference frame.  An dense assemble of dilators will create exact these conditions and light (which is generate by charge motion) will not be generated. In fact, the Black Hole should really be seemed at low frequency radiowaves from that line of reasoning.

All particles, with the exception of the Neutrino, are variations of the Fundamental Dilator and represent coherences with periods close to multiples of the Fundamental Dilator period.  This makes them strong interacting.  Since they contains the Fundamental Dilator as one of their sub-coherences, they contain local metric deformations that have non zero displacement volume per cycle  in nature.

The Neutrino, on the other hand, is a ellipsoid of revolution with only two non-null axes.  Since the axes have opposing values the total displacement volume per cycle is null and it also has the wrong frequency.

I haven't paid enough attention to the 4 dimensional ellipsoid of revolution physical model for the dilators, but I will try to make everything coherent there.  The physical representation of the dilators is not necessary for this theory to make sense.

Protons, Neutrons, etc have three non-null axes of revolution. Electron and Electron-Neutrino have only two. Electron has a non-zero displacement volume per cycle while neutrino has a zero displacement volume per cycle due to its opposing sign axes' lengths.

This will become clearer next.

Let's review the Neutron Model to make sense of what I just wrote.This was first present in the Review of the Hyperon Family Up to the Pion.


Review of Electron, Proton and Neutron Models

Let take a look at the Fundamental Dilator once again.


The Electron(Proton):
The fundamental dilator is a 4D coherence between stationary states of deformation. The deformation of space is quantized, that is, can be represented as states in a 4D double potential well.

The respective coherence for Electron and Proton are shown below:
and for a Proton:


Notice that the Proton and Electron coherences differ only by which is the initial (in phase) state in the coherence. The states associated with the Electron (0,-2/3,-1/3) and (0,-1/3,-2/3) differ not by "energy" since they have the same 3D volume (the Hpergeometrical Universe equivalent to Energy is the 3D projection of the 4D Volume) but by time. It takes time to rotate the dilator around (at the speed of light) and that introduces an extra phase delay on the Tunnelling Process with respect to the Spinning Process. Remember that all particles in the Universe are described in terms of combinations of this two fundamental dilators and that they have Spin Half, that is, they spin at half the speed of tunneling...:) A nice touch, I might say...:)


The Neutron is the first dimmer or two chord sequence. Its Balls Diagram is shown below:
 Notice that I decided to use Red Balls for Positive and Green Balls for Negative moieties...:) Electrician Conventions... (never cut the Green Wire...)  :)



Notice that the diagram above introduce one transmutation chord:
  • Electron-Proton Transmutation Chord

The dimmer character is derived from the impossibility to determine which dimensional note (Electron or Proton) is in phase with the Universe. Under these conditions the Neutron is represented by the two states (one starting with the electron and another starting with the proton) with half probability each one.


The Nature of Neutrinos


Below we show the Anti-Neutrino Coherence.

    The anti-neutrino corresponds to the composite of the two transmutation chords found in the neutron coherence. That is the reason that if you split a neutrino, you will be able to create anti-mater out of Matter.
    Someday I will explain that in a posting..:) Splitting Hairs and Neutrinos...:)

    The 3D Volume Displacement equation is given by:
    Neutron(1/3,1/3,-2/3) = Proton(2/3,2/3,-1/3) + Electron(0,-1/3,-2/3) + Anti-Neutrino(-1/3,0,1/3)

    That means, unlike the electron which is also has only two axes but corresponds to a net decrease in local metric displacement volume (decrease in one phase but a net increase in the alternative phase when protons become a net decrease), the neutrino is always a net zero local metric displacement volume change.  In the example above, the anti-neutrino corresponds to a shrinkage along the X dimension and an stretch on the Z dimension.  This local metric modulation changes the moment of inertia of the sub-coherence and allow for the electron-proton transmutation.  The local metric modulation changes the moment of inertia and in doing so changes the timing between tunneling and spinning within the four-dimensional spatial manifold.

    The anti-neutrino corresponds to the electron-proton + proton-electron transmutation.  I struggled to figure out if that sub-coherence was supposed to be in the lower states or in the upper states.

    I had to decide if the transmutations corresponds to this sequence
    (0,-2/3,-1/3) > (2/3,2/3,-1/3)>(2/3,-1/3,2/3)>(2/3,2/3,-1/3)
    or
    (0,-2/3,-1/3)>(0,-1/3,-2/3)>(0,-2/3,-1/3)>(2/3,2/3,-1/3)
    that is, I had to decide if the delay was cause by a 3D rotation (rotation within the 3D hypersurface) while the coherence was in the lower or in the upper state (proton or electron states).

    After looking at the assignments for all the hyperons and analyzing all hyperon decay equations, I decided that the anti-neutrino (electron-neutrino) would correspond to a 3D rotation (rotation within the 3D Hypersurface) while the neutron coherence was in the proton state, to my surprise.:)  I was hoping for a neater result, that is, that the anti-neutrino would correspond to a rotation while the dilator coherence is in the electron state..:) but such is life... full of disappointments..:)

    Now we know that the neutrino corresponds to a coherence involving the following diagram
    it becomes easier to understand the relationship between this diagram and the (-1/3,0,1/3) representation.


    If I shrink everything along X and and equally stretch everything along Z, that would correspond to a rotation around the Y axis, or a rotation in the 3D space.


    Now let's compare the Neutrino with light.  

    In my theory light is a modulation of the source position of the dilaton field. The dilaton field is continuously irradiated without loss of energy.  In the same way an electromagnetic field would be irradiated without loss if there weren't any absorbers around.  For an electromagnetic coherence to decay and energy be absorbed or irradiated, a dephasing event has to occur. Like in the case of a Boy in the Swing, if one doesn't push the swing in an out-of-phase fashion, energy is never lost nor absorbed (disregarding friction). The propagation of the dilaton field occurs in a pristine 4D spatial manifold without anything to absorb that dilaton field.

    Both have zero net metric displacement per cycle. They differ in the nature of their modes.  Like electromagnetic modes, electromagnetic waves are just modulations of a modulation (the dilaton field).  The dilaton field can be thought as a TEM00 or totally symmetric mode. Of course, the Electron Neutrino can be thought as the first asymmetric mode.  The dilaton mode is not transversal, it is volumetric. The Neutrino mode is asymmetric and transversal.

    In the case of deformation of the local metric, one would expect DISPERSION, that is, different modes with different coherences and frequencies would travel at different speeds, thus the difference in speed between Neutrinos and Photons.

    Please feel free to ask me questions.  They will help me to clarify the points in this posting.

    QED.

    Cheers,

    MP

    PS_ I refreshed the version of my theory, that is, the PDF in this page corresponds to the paper I presented at the 7th Vigier Symposium in London last year.